Meaningful Choices

In the comments to my last post, I got some pushback from stating Covenants in WoW “were choices in the same way stacking Crit vs Versatility is a choice: namely, choosing to be objectively correct or gimp your character in X or Y (or all) content.” Indeed, I believe that the proposed 9.1.5 patch changes that remove the Covenant-switching restrictions is something that should have existed from the beginning. Which, since some people forgot, it kinda did since you could freely change Covenants without friction outside of going back to one you previously “betrayed.” In that one scenario, you were limited to a once-a-week quest.

But let me go a bit further: I do not believe that “meaningful choices” can or ought to exist in MMOs.

What someone means by “meaningful choice” is critically important, of course. There is no one answer. For example, is a mutually exclusive choice always meaningful? Does a choice have to be permanent to be meaningful? Does a choice have to have lasting consequences (which is different than just being permanent) to be meaningful? Does a choice have to feel difficult to make to be meaningful?

I bring up these different dimensions of “meaning” because I sometimes feel that people fetishize Permanence in terms of choices. That if you can change something later, it must mean that the original choice itself didn’t matter. To them I say: Every Moment is a One-Time Event. Specs in WoW have been imminently changeable at the drop of a hat for many years. If you choose to not tank for a raid, that choice lasts only for as long as you want it to. But here’s the thing: the choice you made to not tank yesterday is permanent. You can’t go back in time and make a different choice for the Tuesday raid time. So… was the original decision a meaningful choice? If you were good at tanking, it certain was for everyone there.

Let’s bring this back specifically to WoW Covenants in Shadowlands. For those not playing along at home this expansion, there are four Covenants (i.e. factions) the player could choose to ally with at max level. During the leveling process, you got to do quests for each one and also play around with the unique Covenant abilities that each one offers – some are general abilities, and others are class-specific. Eventually, you have to choose a specific Covenant to champion and otherwise experience the rest of the expansion with.

Is picking a Covenant a meaningful choice?

As I wrote before, I would say No. Was it mutually exclusive? Yes, you can’t have more than one Covenant at a time. Were there consequences? Yes. Sort of. Covenants were swappable even before 9.1.5 but let’s not pretend there isn’t a significant time cost to essentially starting over with rebuilding a Sanctum, grinding Anima, and all the sort of nonsense daily quests one has to do. Plus, you lost access to any Transmog from the original Covenant. Was it permanent? Obviously not, but that would not have been the secret sauce if it was – instead of meaning, such a decision would have brought in frustration and betrayal.

Why? The Covenant abilities themselves are an extremely mixed bag. Sometimes they don’t matter, and other times they matter a whole hell of a lot. For example, if you are a PvP Priest, you want to be Venthyr for the Mindgames ability. Mindgames is one of the most unique CCs ever introduced to WoW, and I guarantee you that it will be brought forward into the next expansion as a Talent or even baseline ability. If you don’t PvP on your Priest character, then sure, your Covenant choice is more wide open. But if you ever thought you would, not picking Venthyr would be playing with a handicap.

On the PvE side, Night Fae is an attractive choice for Death Knights given it increases their mobility, which is otherwise the classical weakness of the class. However, Night Fae is extremely terrible for both Unholy DPS and Blood tanking. So your “choice” is between the optimal DPS/Tanking or improved quality of life. Explain to me again why it’s a good thing that we have to pick between the two.

Notice how none of the above considerations touch on the Covenants themselves: their theme, their plot, their aesthetics, their characters, or anything that actually makes them meaningful from a narrative standpoint. There are certainly players out there for whom Covenant theme is the number one consideration. Helistar said in the comments yesterday: “When I started Shadowlands it was obvious that my druid would be Night Fae, optimal choice or not.” That’s totally fine! Although… I have to ask the follow-up question: if it was so obvious from the start you were picking Night Fae, was the choice really meaningful to begin with?

If it seems as though I’m playing both side of the argument… I kinda am.

The real crux of my argument is this: the designers should not be going out of their way to “enforce” meaningful choices. In Diablo 2, you could not respec your character; in Diablo 3, you could swap your abilities around at almost any time. Was picking talents in Diablo 2 more meaningful? No! All it did was make me feel bad every time I leveled up, knowing I was always going to be 2-3 levels late to the actual good talents due to the dumb, blind decisions I made hours ago. That doesn’t feel meaningful.

Imagine if Blizzard designed Covenants such that Covenant abilities were interchangeable (and probably Soulbinds), but the Covenants themselves were not. Priests could have Mindgames but fight with the Kyrians. That sort of thing. Would that detract from the meaningfulness of the Covenant decision? Or would it… enhance it? I would unequivocally say the latter. Because WoW is an MMO where you could be spending 40 hours a week playing your character and not spend a second progressing whatever story exists. So for me, gameplay decisions and projected viability and optimization are my top priorities. And those things are largely math problems with clear, non-ambiguous answers.

In a hypothetical Shadowlands where Covenants had no particular gameplay impacts, suddenly that decision becomes meaningful. The choice more reflects who I choose to identify with, who I am as a person, who best reflects my values, and that’s a hell of a lot more meaningful than 2% DPS. It would certainly be closer to what I feel were the meaningful choices in, say, the Mass Effect series:

What the exchange highlighted to me though, was how squishy the venerable Sid Meier quote actually is.¹ To me, the choice between curing the Krogan genophage or deciding not to was interesting. In fact, I spent ten minutes or so agonizing over it when the dialog wheel was presented. Was it fair of us to cripple an entire species because we feared their hardiness and breeding speed? At first, I was worried about that hypothetical. Once the Reapers were gone, who is to say that the Krogans don’t simply out-breed and out-muscle the rest of us out of the universe? Then I thought: wait a minute, is this not the same sort of argument used against inter-racial marriages in the past, and even concerns about Islam today?

The genophage choice is definitely one that I felt was meaningful. It can say a lot about you as a person. Maybe the fact that Covenants primarily boil down to a numbers game to me still says something about my values, but I don’t think you can read much more into it other than sometimes 2% DPS actually matters. Rather, I would say that the meaningfulness of a choice in an MMO is directly disproportional to its gameplay effect. If you care about the numbers, then it really isn’t a choice; if you don’t care about the numbers, what are they doing there in the first place? Just remove the numbers.

Finally, for those still stubbornly sticking to their guns regarding “permanent choices are meaningful choices,” I say to you one word: alts. Nothing is permanent if you can have alts. So really it’s just a question of how many hours of hazing you want to require someone to go through to experience the other choice. Or just to potentially be viable in another subset of content.

Posted on September 7, 2021, in Commentary, WoW and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. Meaningful = involving a tradeoff (you gain something, you lose something else) + permanent or semi-permanent (= switching takes time/effort). It’s the kind of choice you make based on the information you collect BEFORE making it and it’s a choice you cannot change with a mouse click (which is why you collect information before making it).
    The problem is that MMORPGs are games of a specific genre, a genre based on picking one character (who has a specific race with specific abilities) and a class (which has specific abilities and lacks some others). If at any time you have a button “make my character XYZ immediately” then it’s not really an MMORPG. This does not mean it’s not perfectly fine to have a game where you can switch everything anytime you want instantly, but again: that game is not an MMORPG.
    Covenants are like your character class, but for this expansion: I don’t see why you should be allowed to switch them instantly. It should work like creating and leveling a new character: you can, but it takes time.

    Like

    • So FF14 isn’t an MMORPG? ;)

      For Covenants then, did/do you consider them meaningful choices as they are right now, when you can already change them on a whim (or once a week at worst)? And do you consider choosing Night Fae for your Druid as being an actual choice given it was such an “obvious” one?

      Given the definitions presented, picking the +Haste cloak over the +Crit cloak at the PvP vendor is a meaningful choice. There’s a tradeoff and switching takes time. It’s pedantic, but that is kinda my point. Once you add gameplay elements to the choice, especially in an MMO so focused on minutia like iLevel and DPS meters and timed challenge modes, it just becomes math. Maybe you get lucky and the Covenant abilities are balanced for your class/spec. But it’s luck and sometimes it’s not even close.

      Like

      • So FF14 isn’t an MMORPG? ;)

        No idea, I never tried it. It was in my plans when one of my friends switched to it saying that it was a WoW killer, much better graphics, much better everything… then dumped it two weeks later…..
        As for your cloak question: yes, of course it is. Actually since I don’t do arena, spending the very little conquest point is very much a question of tradeoff. Aesthetics does not enter into the equation because I already have my transmog set and it’s not changing anytime soon. But it would definitely weight heavily in the decision: stuff you get for stats becomes obsolete at the next tier, the transmog one doesn’t.

        Like

  2. Helistar’s take on what an mmorpg is goes to the heart of why I don’t feel at all comfortable with FFXIV. In a game where one character can be anything, job, race, gender, all of those indicators become null and void in any respect other than as mechanical gameplay elements. Even though I can accept and understand the theoretical possibility of an alternate reality where those choices are innate and natural, that reality is too alien for me to emotionally engage with it. The characters cease to become characters and become mere game pieces to be moved and changed according to the exigencies of the gameplay. That’s not my understanding of an mmorpg.

    I wouldn’t, however, apply the same emotional logic to something like WoW’s Covenants, which seem to me to be much more akin to a real-life choice like wdeciding which religion to follow based on which has the most holidays or the best connections. It is a choice, just a self-serving one.

    The conflating of these kinds of choices with the RPG multiple choice test of a) Yes b) No c) I don’t care which is what most of them seem to me to boil down to is trying to make apple pie with pears, I think. I also have those moments of moral panic when a game asks me to make morally significant and therefore arguably “meaningful” choices but in the end I always do one of two things: I take the choice I beleive the game wants me to take and which will therefore make my gameplay more successful or I log out of the came and never play it again. I have done both.

    To me, the meaningful choices I really do not want are those that put me in such a moral bind my only sustainable choice is to quit the game. I can live with meaningless gameplay meaningfulness but not genuine meaning.

    Like

  3. I 100% agree with the latter part. If covenant was not tied to player power, it would become a meaningful choice, as I would make the choice based on ideology and concept. It would also open covenants up to be more impactful storywise. Sadly enough, as long as it is tied to abilities/power, they need to be changeable.
    A large majority of players will pick the strongest for their content, as has been proven by metrics, and massive covenant moves on the 9.1 changes. And that is understandable because if you play at all competitive, being gimped because of unpredictable changes to a choice you made a year ago is the opposite of fun.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: